Vernon cited evidence for the magnitude of the flood, such as the use
of an ark rather than migration, the local mountains being covered,
and its duration. However, this does not prove that the flood was
global. Glenn Morton's Mediterranean flood addresses these issues,
for example, as would other large regional flood models. I am not
certain that the choice of an ark rather than migration proves that
it would have been impossible for Noah et al. to escape if they
started walking instead of building. He would not have been able to
preach to his neighbors if he had left; on the other hand, they might
have followed him and escaped judgement without repenting.
> Here is my understanding of your position, as an evolutionist:
* Adam was just one of many hominids who frequented the earth many
thousands of years ago.
* He was chosen by God to be the progenitor of a line of beings with
whom He could enjoy fellowship. <
These would probably be agreed upon by anyone who accepts both
old-earth views (not necessarily evolution) and Genesis. Whether
Adam is envisioned as a descendant of other hominids or separately
created would vary.
>* What we read of the Fall relates specifically to him and his seed;
>his erstwhile companions - the other hominids - are therefore not
>involved , and are thus free from "original sin". <
Not necessarily. Adam could have been a representative whose bad
decision had immediate spiritual consequences for all his
contemporaries. Another view suggests that the spiritual
consequences spread somewhat more slowly, but still applies to
everyone today.
On the other hand, the other hominids could have been free not only
of original sin but of reason, and thus theologically animals, not
human. This is most compatible with the view that Adam was very
early, the physical ancestor of all modern humans.
>* It was the wickedness of Adam's seed that brought the Flood down
>upon their heads - and, indeed, on all living things - within the
>confines of the "Land of Noah" (as Mike has it), ie Mesopotamia. <
The exact location varies, but that basic idea would be accepted by
any advocate of a regional flood.
>* Elsewhere, life (and evolution) continued as before. <
Yes, though this life elsewhere did not necessarily include any
spiritually responsible beings, i.e. humans in a theological sense.
>* It must follow that the current world population is a complex
>mixture of the "sinless" and the "fallen" - for whom Jesus suffered
>and died. <
No, as efforts to integrate geological knowledge with Genesis
generally come from Christians, who recognize the theological
principle that all modern people are fallen and in need of the gospel.
I hope this clarifies views on Genesis.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 26 2002 - 21:53:57 EDT